A social-science study, regardless of its nature, must rely on specific methodologies accredited by social-scientists and researchers. Studies are generally carried out in accordance with certain needs and must have an aim and arrive at results using a variety of scientific tools.
These tools must be tried and tested so that when used they are able to provide the best and most accurate of results.
In any serious scientific study, honesty, integrity and accuracy are three important and essential factors.
These values demand the publishing of both supporting and differing results of research hypotheses and questions especially if the study is being based on a specific assumption. In the choosing of research samples one must be objective and not biased in any way.
If these essential etiquettes of research were to be absent, then a researcher could not be considered to be truly committed to the strict professionalism of scientific research and would be in fact tainting its process and the bodies that are funding the research.
Recently, the Guidance Department of the National Guard carried out a study about Saudi women, which was then published in the Al-Jazeerah newspaper on July 9. The study was entitled “A study of 400 women has proved that 88 percent of Saudi women do not want to drive cars”. In the introduction statistics relating to the opinion of Saudi woman about a host of issues — most importantly women driving, working and also traveling — were mentioned.
Abdullah ibn Bakheet criticized the report in his article entitled “90 percent of women agree to join legal courts” that was also published in Al-Jazeerah on July 10. Bakheet mentioned how the study lacks the spirit of research. On this basis, Bakheet included specific statistics that highlighted the mistakes in the figures presented in the original report.
I really wonder what motivated the National Guard’s Guidance Department to undertake such a paper. Were they really motivated to find out the reality of what Saudi women really think? Was it really their aim to find out what women think about issues such as driving cars, traveling, education, marriage and work? Why is it so important for the guidance department, whose main priority is to coordinate religious education, to conduct such a study?
In order to ensure credibility, the researchers could have asked a research body like a university to help. It is unprofessional and unacceptable to rely on granted facts and then to try proving them in unscrupulous ways.
What has been published about Saudi women under the title of “Scientific Study” lacks scientific data. Firstly, in order to ensure the credibility of facts and results, we don’t even know which academic group is responsible for the study. Secondly, who the participants are? We only know that 400 people were tested, that they were women and also Saudi.
But we don’t know the answers to other important issues concerning the people who were asked. There is no mention of age, educational background, economic status, intellectual capacity, religion, social status, or an understanding of how much these women have been exposed to non-Saudi cultures. We also do not know which cities, towns and regions these women come from.
In addition, it would have been important to mention whether the women who partook in the study were related in any way to the researchers who carried out the study. It is more than possible that women that were asked questions could have been coerced and influenced by the questioners — therefore it is important to know whether there are any potential influential factors.
Importantly, the report also doesn’t explain what sort of scientific tools and methods have been used. Were participants surveyed using questionnaires, interviews or plain simple observational methods? Were the research methods verified by independent academics? Who were the researchers? Were they male or female? What sort of educational qualifications do they possess? Do they have any sociology background?
Interestingly the research also didn’t make reference to any previous studies that fall into the same category and nor did they cover related discourse published in newspapers or broadcast on television.
For instance, Al-Ekhbariah conducted a questionnaire asking Saudi women about driving cars. The results provided contrasting opinions regarding the issue.
On the Internet, some websites have also published surveys about the same topic. The Guidance Department of the National Guard could have at least mentioned these opinions as they definitely represent the views of a large sector of Saudi society that can definitely not be neglected.
Noticeably, the results of the study were devoid of different point of views. When it comes to the issue of working in a mixed gender environment we only find three variables: absolute rejection, rejection, and no specified opinion. These variables are not inclusive and do not present an accurate point of view.
With reference to the outcome of the report, the question remains whether the conclusion was reached through unbiased scientific objective observation and study or was the conclusion rather developed to convince people of an assumption by giving it a scientific and professional outlook? If this is true then putting so much effort to try to convince people is sufficient proof that most people are definitely unconvinced.
Reading the study published by the Guidance Department would only allow someone to come to the conclusion that the results are unfair and definitely pre-decided. This is underlined by the fact that what has been termed to be a “study” was not carried out with an aim of achieving a scientific impartial goal but rather to prove ideological targets that have no relation to scientific methods of research or study.
Saudis who love their country, irrespective of gender, and who want the Kingdom to grow even better and greater would be shocked to hear that the country’s research institutes have gone so low as to distort truth and the real perceptions of people on nationwide issues.
